Wimbledon (part 1)

[Power King]

Re: Wimbledon

meh andy roddick is great for tennis

has personality, is outspoken in the media, has charisma, sexes many women, has been top 5-10 for 7 years now, and yes he gets pumped up on court (who cares, heat of the battle)

i guess at the end of the day, some people would rather see someone display the personality that revolves around, "fiddle dee how do you do? i look forward to next week"

same goes for anyone outspoken in the afl media... people would rather listen to boring dull ***** than people who make well-founded yet outspoken comments

it all comes from an inability to attempt to place one's self into another's shoes

 

[matt_897]

Re: Wimbledon

Yeah, I love Andy, honest, gives a good interview everytime, personality that is rare in tennis.

Read an article about Hewitt and his chances at Wimby, love how he says he is still a chance of winning, "if the draw opens up and get tot he second week..." not happening Lleyton. Very curious to see how he goes against Andy in a few moment, i expect a 7-6, 6-3 loss or something along those lines.

 

[OzBomber]

Re: Wimbledon

I love Andy Roddick. Very good player and quite a funny guy as well. Love watching his press conferences. Says it how it is.

 

[CanonNo1]

Re: Wimbledon

Yeah, I love Andy, honest, gives a good interview everytime, personality that is rare in tennis.

Read an article about Hewitt and his chances at Wimby, love how he says he is still a chance of winning, "if the draw opens up and get tot he second week..." not happening Lleyton. Very curious to see how he goes against Andy in a few moment, i expect a 7-6, 6-3 loss or something along those lines.

Lleyton ... please give it a rest, don't treat us for a bunch of fools. I'd say the draw would have to open up for him to reach the 2nd week let alone be a chance of winning.

 

[matt_897]

Re: Wimbledon

Lleyton ... please give it a rest, don't treat us for a bunch of fools. I'd say the draw would have to open up for him to reach the 2nd week let alone be a chance of winning.

Exactly, he'll have enough trouble defending those 4th round points.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Re: Wimbledon

you call me one eyed.Have a good hard look at yourself.Nadal is not a genius? his forehand still strategies which completely left federer at bay is not a sign of a genius? or you need to hit 100 winners only to be a genius? you need to look at a player as a whole, not his forehand or his backhand.Its the brain too.Every player depends on his atheletic ability to win matches.Roger Federers movement on court is very slick and extremely underrated part of his game.I would say his movement is right next to Nadals and he gets a lot of balls back too with his movement and that stab forehand.Again, its underrated, however that comment coming from you, i take it with a grain of salt.

John Lloyd, former UK No.1 and sometime commentator summed it up in saying that a routine 6-2 6-3 win costs Nadal a lot more than it does Federer. He has to invest more to get the win and as Agassi has put it he has to keep writing those cheques which his body has to cash.

I don't think saying this is in any way controversial.

 

[pepsi]

Re: Wimbledon

Men's

Winner: Fed
R/Up: Roddick

Outside Chances: Murray, Del Potro


Women's
The winner will come from Venus, Serena or Sharapova. No other Woman can win the title.

 

[Drummond]

Re: Wimbledon

you call me one eyed.Have a good hard look at yourself.Nadal is not a genius? his forehand still strategies which completely left federer at bay is not a sign of a genius? or you need to hit 100 winners only to be a genius? you need to look at a player as a whole, not his forehand or his backhand.Its the brain too.Every player depends on his atheletic ability to win matches.Roger Federers movement on court is very slick and extremely underrated part of his game.I would say his movement is right next to Nadals and he gets a lot of balls back too with his movement and that stab forehand.Again, its underrated, however that comment coming from you, i take it with a grain of salt.

You wouldn't believe how much frustration that stupid little shot causes me. He's often way out of position, just gets his racquet on it and not only does he get the ball back into play it lands RIGHT on the baseline. He does it ALL THE TIME!

Particularly after Roland Garros, Federer will be emotionally drained at the start of Wimbledon, and an upset in the early rounds is possible if his opposition doesn't completely melt when the opportunity arises.

And that’s just why he won’t lose early or at all in this tournament. I’ve lost count the amount of times opponents choke at the sight of victory against Federer, it’s ridiculous. Nadal will no doubt play Wimbledon but how far can he go on his troublesome knees?

I've got no doubt Federer will win this title. And it'll be another GS Final I won't bother watching, as much as it pains me to do so.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Re: Wimbledon

You wouldn't believe how much frustration that stupid little shot causes me. He's often way out of position, just gets his racquet on it and not only does he get the ball back into play it lands RIGHT on the baseline. He does it ALL THE TIME!

Why does it frustrate you? He does it all the time, which proves it's no fluke, so why can't you admire the skill of the shot? Are you that much of an anti-Fed tool that you can't acknowledge good tennis when you see it? I find that sad. Punce.

And that’s just why he won’t lose early or at all in this tournament.

It wouldn't be because he's a bloody good player, would it? Nah, it's because players choke whenever they have an opening. I think you've found the secret to Roger's success. You, sir, are phenomenal.

 

[Drummond]

Re: Wimbledon

Why does it frustrate you? He does it all the time, which proves it's no fluke, so why can't you admire skill when you see it? Are you that much of an anti-Fed tool that you can't acknowledge good tennis when you see it? I find that sad. Punce.

What the heck is your problem? Of course it's not a fluke, it's an insanely effective shot. How he can hit the line time after time proves how immensly skilled he is.

It wouldn't be because he's a bloody good player, would it? Nah, it's because players choke whenever they have an opening. I think you've found the secret to Roger's success. You, sir, are phenomenal.

So you don't ackowledge the fact players choke against Federer? I could give you numerous examples, what about in Cincinnati MS last year when Ginepri was up a set and a break, served for the match and hit 4 straight UE's?

It is possible to have a sensible conversation without having to resort to acting like a tool.

 

[CanonNo1]

Re: Wimbledon

To summarise, the fundamental reason for Roger's success seams to that players 'choke' when the play him???

If we diregard this minor mental aspect, clearly they are all better than him skill wise and in all other facets, except this inability to 'win' due to some sort of 'mental' issue. Bloody hell ... I must have been watching a different sport the past 6 years, I swear I thought he was the most talented and skilled player on tour.

Please, some of the crap people post is beyond a joke. To say, a player who has made 20 grand slams in a row and won 14, only did so because players 'choke' rather than him winning them is ridiculous.

The reason they don't beat him is
a) They have inferior skills
b) They are inferior mentally
c) He is, taking everything into considering, a f##k load better than most of them.

 

[Drummond]

Re: Wimbledon

To summarise, the fundamental reason for Roger's success seams to that players 'choke' when the play him???

If we diregard this minor mental aspect, clearly they are all better than him skill wise and in all other facets, except this inability to 'win' due to some sort of 'mental' issue. Bloody hell ... I must have been watching a different sport the past 6 years, I swear I thought he was the most talented and skilled player on tour.

Please, some of the crap people post is beyond a joke. To say, a player who has made 20 grand slams in a row and won 14, only did so because players 'choke' rather than him winning them is ridiculous.

The reason they don't beat him is
a) They have inferior skills
b) They are inferior mentally
c) He is, taking everything into considering, a f##k load better than most of them.

Yes, that is clearly what I am saying. He's a hack, has no skills, has relied on other players crumbling in order to get every single win in his career.

Oh BigFooty, you've gotta love it.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Re: Wimbledon

What the heck is your problem? Of course it's not a fluke, it's an insanely effective shot. How he can hit the line time after time proves how immensly skilled he is.

So why does it frustrate you? Shouldn't any real fan of tennis admire a shot like that rather than sook about it? It's because you don't like Roger Federer, isn't it? Go on, tell me why you don't like him. I can't wait to hear your reason, especially since you like Hewitt. This should be good.

 

[Drummond]

Re: Wimbledon

So why does it frustrate you? Shouldn't any real fan of tennis admire a shot like that rather than sook about it? It's because you don't like Roger Federer, isn't it? Go on, tell me why you don't like him. I can't wait to hear your reason, especially since you like Hewitt. This should be good.

Great post, thumbs up.

The shot frustrates me because seeing him being dominated in a rally and completely out of position only to get back into a great position due to that shot is annoying. Sure it's skillful, but given I am going for the opponent it's frustrating. Got that through your thick head. Say when you're playing Carlton and Fevola kicks a goal out of nowhere, you might be frustrated. Instead of saying, "the bloke is a gun, what a goal" I'm willing to bet you get pretty frustrated.

And can't we have our favourites and players we dislike? Gee, I thought people were allowed to pick things like that, obviously I was mistaken.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Re: Wimbledon

And can't we have our favourites and players we dislike? Gee, I thought people were allowed to pick things like that, obviously I was mistaken.

You must have missed the whole point of my post. I know why you get frustrated. I even mentioned it in my post:

It's because you don't like Roger Federer, isn't it?

I want to know why you don't like Federer, and I'm really looking forward to the answer.

 

[Drummond]

Re: Wimbledon

Yeah, it's because I don't like Federer. I thought that was pretty simple but then again you are pretty simple.

I want the opponent to win + Federer does that stab forehand = opponent generally loses the point from a winnable position.

And I like Hewitt because I do, and dislike Federer because I do.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Re: Wimbledon

Yeah, it's because I don't like Federer. I thought that was pretty simple but then again you are pretty simple.

You can't even answer a simple question. Why don't you like Roger Federer?

 

[Drummond]

Re: Wimbledon

Yawn, you're really boring.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Re: Wimbledon

Yawn, you're really boring.

You, like TP, are under the impression he's arrogant, and you can't list that reason because everyone on here knows you like Hewitt (one of the more arrogant players ever). That makes you a hypocrite and leaves you in a bit of sticky situation, so instead of saying the real reason, you don't answer the question.

No need to reply. I know I'm right

 

[matt_897]

Re: Wimbledon

I've got no doubt Federer will win this title. And it'll be another GS Final I won't bother watching, as much as it pains me to do so.

See this is what confuses me. sure, you can dislike Federer as a tennis fan I don't understand why you would skip watching a GS final, it's the ultimate moment of the sport. It would be like missing last year's GF because you don't like Hawthorn or Geelong but still claim you are a big footy fan. Plus the fact if Federer wins, you will be seeing one of the biggest moments in history of tennis/sport. Any tennis fan should aknolwedge that (some here won't though)

I really do see Federer winning this time around, again i factor in the pressure of winning a 15th slam and I think someone who plays out of their skin can do it, can't see it happening though. Nadal is a rather unknown quanity one way or the other coming into Wimbledon.

 

[CanonNo1]

Re: Wimbledon

Agree, I won't not watch the GF because i dislike a team. For that matter, if Usain Bolt is about to run sub 9 seconds, will i turn off the TV because I don't like him?

Being a massive tennis fan, which we are all (else we wouldnt be on this board). Imagine in 20 years if someone asks if you watchd Federer win his 15th slam title and you answer "ah .. umm... nah ... i switched it off"???

Now back to the topic.

Fed winning the French could work in 2 ways :-
A) He becomes super relaxed and just enjoys his tennis and plays god like tennis.
B) He becomes super relaxed, enjoys his tennis, but drops his intensity and drive.

IMO, I think he's got too much on the line ...he knows the only way to be remembered as the best player (which he definetly wants so he can feed the ego) is to win 3/4 more slas.

WINNER - R. Federer
RUP - Del Potro

 

[gaelictiogar]

Re: Wimbledon

Agree, I won't not watch the GF because i dislike a team. For that matter, if Usain Bolt is about to run sub 9 seconds, will i turn off the TV because I don't like him?

Being a massive tennis fan, which we are all (else we wouldnt be on this board). Imagine in 20 years if someone asks if you watchd Federer win his 15th slam title and you answer "ah .. umm... nah ... i switched it off"???

Now back to the topic.

Fed winning the French could work in 2 ways :-
A) He becomes super relaxed and just enjoys his tennis and plays god like tennis.
B) He becomes super relaxed, enjoys his tennis, but drops his intensity and drive.

IMO, I think he's got too much on the line ...he knows the only way to be remembered as the best player (which he definetly wants so he can feed the ego) is to win 3/4 more slas.

WINNER - R. Federer
RUP - Del Potro

I think you raise a very good point. With the pressure of chasing the 14th now off and with the effects on his form and confidence of his illness combined with Rafa's admirable form now seeming over with it will be interesting to see how he performs.

Will he have a glorious indian summer to his career and dominate for the next two seasons as he is very capable of doing or will his drive and fearof failure blunt his desire. Find ing the answer to this question is among the several things that will make Wimbledon and Flushing Meadows so interesting.

Another is how Rafa will react to being the hunted. He hunted Federer for so long and now it is him enduring difficulty and feeling the breath on his neck. It'll be fascinating.

 

[matt_897]

Re: Wimbledon

Tomic got a qualifying WC.

 

[alinghi]

Re: Wimbledon

If Nadal is injured and doesn't play, it's more or less a shoe-in that Federer will win. When was the last time he lost to someone on grass bar Nadal?

Have a look at Fedrerers record this year against Nadal-Djokovic-Murray.

Dont forget, he was hardly convincing in most of his RG matches - Acasuso, Del Potro and Haas all had their chances to knock him off.

That said, Djokovic seems a right off in current form, Nadal may not play, so Murray will be his main adversary.

 

[alinghi]

Re: Wimbledon

Men's

Winner: Fed
R/Up: Roddick

Outside Chances: Murray, Del Potro


Women's
The winner will come from Venus, Serena or Sharapova. No other Woman can win the title.

Venus - been in shit form, but I guess she could rise to the occasion.

Serena - the fat b*tch is still suffering from an injury, and if its hot she will struggle.

Sharapova - probably still a little raw, and the shoulder remains questionable. Awful loss to Li yesterday (a player she was previously 5-0 against).

Have you heard of Victoria Azarenka? She was flogging Serena in Melbourne this year, before retiring hurt. This girl can turn heads, in more ways than one.